Top Law Schools

This is a sufficient assumption question. I want to find an answer choice that makes the conclusion valid.

The conclusion in this argument is: (~ denotes a negation)

Acquire Money ---> ~ Sacrifice Happiness

The premise for this is:

Happiness ---> Health


As of now in my analysis of the problem, I see that a missing link is "acquiring money" as it is not mentioned in the premises, thus it can not be validly drawn as the conclusion.

I now look at my answer choices to discard those that do not contain "acquiring money."

As I look, I see that the test writer(s) has chosen words like "money" and "wealth" in some of the answer choices.

Am I allowed to make that leap that acquiring money = money or wealth?

I do not feel comfortable making that leap in either case. The act of acquiring money is different than just the concept of money or wealth.


The correct answer is A. There is not an easy way of diagramming this answer choice although the stimulus is easily diagrammable. I need some assistance in grasping how choice A proves the conclusion. And could one even effectively diagram that scenario of an answer choice?

I checked on our explanation forum and I think my colleague's explanation addresses your question:

I imagine this would be a pretty difficult argument to diagram --

Here's an analogous argument that might make the issue clearer:

Imagine your friend said to you,

"You shouldn't wear that sweater to the party, because if you do Janice won't like you."

What is your friend assuming? That you actually care what Janice thinks. What would make his case logical? If you did actually care what Janice thinks, and if you did actually let that influence you.

Imagine we through the following assumption into the above argument: "I should wear the sweater only if it isn't one that makes Janice not like me." Notice, then your friend's argument would make perfect sense.

(A) essentially plays the same role in this argument.

The author is saying one shouldn't sacrifice health for wealth.

Why?

Because without health we can't have obtain happiness.

When would this reason be sufficient? If we knew that we do actually want that happiness -- therefore, "Money should be acquired only if its acquisition will not make happiness unobtainable," makes a lot of sense as a correct answer.

(E) is comparative, and because of that can be eliminated (we're not making any points about more or less.)

Hopefully that helps clear things up. As to your question of jumping from "acquiring money" to "wealth," I agree that it's fishy, and (A) avoids that.